Missouri drug courts offer second chance

*An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified Penny Clodfelter's name and title.

JEFFERSON CITY — When Melody Aber was 36, her three children were taken away after her Kansas City drug
dealer called the Social Services Department because she stopped
buying from him.

According to Aber, it was excessive
drinking and smoking marijuana, crack cocaine and crystal meth that led
her down a path of destruction.

Now nearing her 38th birthday and living in Independence, Aber has
regained custody of her children, ages 3, 4 and 16, and she has been
clean and sober for one year and nine months.

Aber said if not for the Missouri
family drug court, she "would have ended up dead."

Missouri's drug court system started in 1998 and now boasts a 50 percent graduation rate with a 10 percent
rate of relapse, said Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice William
Ray Price Jr.

Corrections Department spokeswoman Jacqueline Lapine said, "Drug
courts are an excellent program" that provide more opportunities for
people because of the tools they have at their disposal for recovery.

Price, who is also the chairman of the Missouri Drug Court
Commission, said drug courts are "the best strategy for recovery and
reduction of crime relating to drugs."

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, however, opposes
the drug courts because addiction is a mental health issue, not
a criminal one, association board member Rick Jones said. Jones served as co-chairman of a task force the board established to examine drug courts.

"There is a problem that we as a society have found it easy and
convenient to dump our problems of the criminal justice system where it
doesn't belong," Jones said.

Because of the number of cases that go before judges dealing with
drug courts, "the criminal justice system comes to a stand still," he
said.

*Penny Clodfelter, drug court administrator for the Jackson County Family and Juvenile Drug Court Program and a member of the Board of the Missouri Association of Drug Court Professionals, said these courts are important
because they address parents who have substance abuse issues that put
children at risk.

After being entered into the program, Aber had to go to weekly
treatments, meetings and drug testing, which she said gave her the
structure she needed to get her children back. By participating in
these activities and others — such as psychiatric treatment, family
therapy and parenting classes — she was able to get her family back.

In order to get this help, though, Jones said, people have to plead
guilty to crimes in order to be admitted into drug courts. He said someone should
not be forced to plead guilty so they can get help.

Drug courts have graduated 7,991
people from its 108 programs with 1,201 since July of last
year, Clodfelter said.

Jones said these numbers are inflated. Because prosecutors are
concerned with keeping up their numbers, they tend to allow those who
are most likely to succeed but need it the least to participate in the program. Meanwhile, he said, people who
need drug courts the most aren't getting in.

Jones said prosecutors take on those
cases they are most likely to win.

"It's much easier to get a
conviction of a guy with 10 prior convictions rather than a guy with
one," he said.

For these problems to be solved, Jones said there needs to be
standardized admissions that are fair and equal. He said there is no
true statistic to show whether the courts are open to all races,
genders and classes, but he has found they generally are discriminatory.

Even though admission standards do not exist now, advocates say the courts still provide a tangible benefit to the state.

By preventing future drug convictions and social service costs
through rehabilitation, Clodfelter said, the program saves taxpayer
dollars.

Price said including all the overhead costs in both prison and drug
court, drug court costs from a fourth to a third of sending someone to
prison. He said it usually costs $7,000 a year to put someone through
the treatment of a drug court, while it costs anywhere from $15,000 to
$25,000 a year to keep someone in prison.

According to the Corrections Department Web site, there are
are 5,588 prisoners incarcerated for drug crimes. There are 2,544 in drug court programs.

"With the program, people are able to be successfully monitored in
the community without taking up bed space in prison," Lapine said.

Clodfelter said drug court offers not only immediate returns in terms of saving money, but there are long-term effects as well.

"Once they
aren't a burden to society, they can contribute to society," she said.

One problem that these courts currently face is a budgetary one. The
budget for the drug courts in fiscal year 2010 is set at $5.4 million after the system requested $10.1 million, Clodfelter said.

These funds, which come from the state and federal governments and
local communities, are "not funded at a level that would benefit
people," said Price.

Although she has graduated from drug court, Aber has found that the process of staying clean doesn't end when treatment does.

Aber has started an alumni support group because the lack of help can lead some to relapse, she said.

"If no
support system is there after you leave, you just don't know what to
do," she said.

Comments

Drug courts work, according to a former meth addict who emailed me at methlabhomes.com. He said that without drug court and his faith in God, he would have died. His girlfriend was also allowed to enter the drug court program and she has also been able to successfully complete the program. Both of them have been clean for a few years now.

Personally, I wish more people who are addicted to meth were required to attend drug court programs. We can not resolve someone's addiction problem by putting them in jail. Most meth addicts and meth cooks that are sent to prison, typically start using or making meth again, within a short time of their release. News reports about repeat offenders aren't hard to find on the Net.

If we are going to truly address the meth addiction and meth manufacturing problem in Missouri or anywhere else in the U.S., we have to focus on the addiction.

The first paragraph of this article reeks. Melody's drug dealer called family services because she stopped buying drugs? Not likely, last time I checked selling drugs was a far more serious offense than possession. Once they make Melody here an enemy with a motive for vengeance they can no longer sell to anybody with out dramatically increasing the chance of being raided, which cost way more money than one lost customer. Logically this dosen't make sense, it would make far more sense to just blackmail Melody for the money. There is just no profit in turning someone in. I have to believe that Melody made this up to avoid implicating herself in a larger crime.

I guess the point of this is why would the Missourian take anything a drug addict said at face value.